Ms Giles (she doesn't seem to have her own website) is head of the Christchurch City Vision grouping and a self confessed girl racer. Was she also a candidate for ACT in a general election? http://2005.electionresults.govt.nz/electorate-19.html
WHYReturn to TopThe following are my personal opinions and observations. No-one else is responsible. I hope they will provoke the reader to vote!
On reflection I suppose this essay/blog started life at this time three years ago when I opened the electoral envelope. I'd recently moved to Chch and so it was my first time to cast a vote here. I expected the usual national political parties to be listed and would tick the appropriate boxes.
Instead I found names like 2021 and Independent Citizens, which were meaningless to me. The rest of the candidates were all "independent". I almost voted for the independents but stopped at the last minute - voting for the wrong person might be worse than not voting at all. In the end I didn't vote for the first time in over 20 years.
Not so this time, especially since the Cycleway Morotorium. As a cyclist I was extremely annoyed by this decision. I'd taken part the consultation process and attending meetings, then saw the almost universal acceptance of the plan in residents surveys. As things turned out it was just one of a long list of controversial decisions by the CCC.
So over the last few weeks I've attended several Meet the Candidates and related meetings, visited websites, asked a few questions and heard even more answers. This has provided a greater insight into the candidates than publicity flyers could hope to do.
Even so, with so many "independents" standing again it isn't easy. In the end I've come to my decisions through elimination.
I'm one of those nuisance floating voters but think my point of view is of a person slightly to the left of centre. On the other hand there are a couple of promising candidates I could easily vote for on the right. What stops me is their past relationship with groups like exclusive brethren and reclusive sisters!
More than anything I believe that in open and transparent democratic societies there is no place for secrecy, hidden agendas and deceitfulness. These are about power and control, not serving the community who elect them.
Today our society faces many serious issues that require action. Climate change; water quality and quantity; traffic congestion; pollution; increasing social and economic inequality to name a few.
To succeed the solutions must come from all of us. Neither left nor right have all the answers.
The people I'd prefer to be elected are the ones who can demostrate they recognise the difference between the causes and the symptoms of an issue. Prevention is better than cure.
We need fences at the top of the cliff, not ever more expensive hospitals at the bottom. For instance, trying to reduce crime by installing more CCTV's to monitor the public and building more prisons to cater for tougher sentences only deals with the symptoms. They are not solutions.
The strongest communities tend to be inclusive. Exclude and alienate too many people and the end result is likely to be anarchy. Disagree? See what is happening in Burma.
We're spoilt for choice amongst the ten candidates. There is an ex leader of the National Front, a communist, a street cleaner (cleaner, not sweeper) and the odd comedian. The comedians might be better off in a cabaret show.
The three main contenders appear to be Megan Woods, Bob Parker and Jo Giles.
Ms Giles (she doesn't seem to have her own website) is head of the Christchurch City Vision grouping and a self confessed girl racer. Was she also a candidate for ACT in a general election? http://2005.electionresults.govt.nz/electorate-19.html
Many of the policies she promotes seem to be reactionary. Like Mr Parker she supports putting a road through pedestrian City Mall.
Ms Giles and Mr Parker have both been television hosts. That might be why they both support increased camera surveillance in public places to fight crime. I'm not sure how you make a world class city when visitors' every movement is monitored by hordes of cameras. It seems to me another step towards an Orwellian Society. Let's hope if they succeed we're not taken over by a dictator!
Then there is always the possibility Ms Giles' election campaign is just a bit of self-promotion for her Canterbury television show?
Mr Parker's http://www.bobparker.co.nz presentation is very polished and convincing, it is almost regal! The latter conflicts with the public persona on his posters which seems to promote that of just an ordinary Bob the bloke next door. So which is it?
He claims to be a bridge builder between different factions and is experienced with many years in office. It cannot be easy to persuade the organisation you head to self-destruct as with Banks' Peninsula District Council. Could Chch be next - another stepping stone to higher places?
He has a reputation of having vague policies that lack detail. This can be a good thing when flexibility is needed and is better than a rigid adherence to idealogy.
But significantly for me, at the Town Hall Mayoral Forum he said his campaign is expected to cost $60,000!!! Is this NZ or America? The more expensive the election campaigns become, the less democratic is the process.
More importantly he refused to answer a question about who is helping to fund his campaign. This is unacceptable in an open and transparent democracy. We should know who will expect a payback before voting, not afterwards.
That leaves Megan Woods. http://www.megan4mayor.com Certainly her performances have been much better than her campaign for the Progressives in the last General Election. But does she have the strength of character and skills to manage the diverse range of interests she will come up against? Has she put the wind up the powerful business and farm lobby?
At 30 something, youth is on her side and is clearly forward looking. Something neither of the other two have demonstrated. 2021 policies have been up on their website from the beginning.
In the end probably for me it isn't so much Ms Woods, but the collective performance of the 2021 team at all the meetings I've attended. If she is responsible for putting together a team with such promise then she should be given a chance.
There seems to be a desire in local body elections not to use national political party names, hence the use of the word "groupings".
1) Independents: There are so many independents it is impossible to try cover them all. So I'll group them together under this sub-heading.
With virtually all the out-going CCC being "independent" they have collectively undermined my faith in the term. It has been interesting to hear some councillors say they think they've done a good job. Please excuse me for the strong words, but I believe this shows an arrogance common amongst those who're out of touch will reality.
I left one City Council seminar during the cycleway moratorium under the immpression I'd just been to the circus - some of the councillors performed like a bunch of clowns (sorry clowns)!
Perhaps it was the reduction from 24 to 13 councillors, or maybe the more isolated corporate style of governance they adopted.
If too much "independent" isn't good for wise decision making then a few could be. Just as too many from one group may not be healthy either. Like many things, I guess it comes down to a question of balance.
Without doubt some independents are very good, others show promise. I will vote for at least one. In the end I guess you need to go listen to them and visit their websites. See or ask who has done their homework and made themselves familiar with the issues they must tackle. The latter applies to all candidates.
2) Minor groupings: Cannot say much about these. Save Our Water seem to be a single issue group particularly with regard to the Central Plains Water Scheme. This scheme promises to be the biggest issue to face the wider central Canterbury community over the next few years.
Another small group with interests in CPW is Experienced Independents. One, Denis O'Rourke is also a trustee of CPW. At meetings he came across as having a very strong dislike of opposing views, perhaps a little too strong for my taste. I suspect he is really too emotional involved to be able to offer a balanced judgement as an ECAN councillor. The other Experienced Independent supported the cycleway moratorium.
3) Christchurch City Vision: www.christchurchcityvision.org.nz/index.htm
An earlier visit to their website revealed it was pretty bare with no policy statements. It has improved since but still gives me the impression of lacking in direction. Hastily thrown together with a bit of this and a bit of that.
Many of their policies focus on the symptoms and not the cause of problems our community face. If they support a road through City Mall then perhaps they should be called City Rearview Vision?! Wrooom vrooom!
4) Independent Citizens: http://www.independentcitizens.co.nz/
They don't seem to have a leader. Could it be Alec Neill? Nor do they have a mayoral candidate... so could Bob Parker be their secret leader?
They claim to be "...a grouping of independent Christchurch citizens, free from party politics.", but that doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny. A retiring ECAN councillor Nicky Wagner is also a current National Party list MP. Alec Neill a senior member of IC and seeking re-election to ECAN is an ex-National MP.
I couldn't find any policies listed on their website. Perhaps groups of independents citizens don't have policies.
Many of their candidates are business people. Business people don't always make good politicians. Business is autocratic in nature - top down. It can conflict with the democratic electoral system - bottom up.
Other observations and probably most telling; very few of their candidates seem to come from the poorer areas of Chch; one of their candidates said at a meeting that Climate Change is a myth; another said we should prepare for Climate Change; they are contesting only 3 of the 6 community boards.
5) 2021: http://www.2021.org.nz/
My understanding is they were originally a Labour, Greens and Progressive coalition but now they claim to be a broad church of opinions.
Not having heard any of them speak prior to the election I admit to being surprised by the strength of their presentation. Generally they show a deeper thinking of the important issues than the other candidates. Generally but not all.
They have a wide age range, a blend of youth and experience, and better reflect the multi-cultural nature of NZ society. And they are the only grouping who don't claim to be independent!! Which has got to be worth a few votes on its own!
In the end I'm going to vote for people who I feel confident they haven't tried to mislead me.
Nigel Rushton
pedaller@paradise.net.nz
P.S. Not everyone will agree with me! So if any reader has different opinions to mine please let me know and I will be happy to put a link to your webpage from here.
Thursday, 27th September 2007